SJC rules on ‘postnuptial’ agreements

The Supreme Judicial Court has weighed in on an issue of nationwide debate – whether so-called “postnuptial” or “marital” agreements are contrary to public policy.
“[W]e join many other States in concluding that marital agreements must be carefully scrutinized,” announced Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall.
“Before a marital agreement is sanctioned by a court, careful scrutiny by the judge should determine at a minimum whether (1) each party has had an opportunity to obtain separate legal counsel of each party’s own choosing; (2) there was fraud or coercion in obtaining the agreement; (3) all assets were fully disclosed by both parties before the agreement was executed; (4) each spouse knowingly and explicitly agreed in writing to waive the right to a judicial equitable division of assets and all marital rights in the event of a divorce; and (5) the terms of the agreement are fair and reasonable at the time of execution and at the time of divorce,” Marshall said.
The SJC upheld a lower court ruling that upheld the validity of a 2004 agreement executed by a couple who married in 1985.
The wife complained that the agreement would leave her with a disproportionately small percentage of the couple’s marital assets.
“The wife points to no material change between the time she, on the advice of counsel, executed the marital agreement and the husband’s petition for divorce in 2006,” Marshall responded.
“In determining whether a marital agreement is fair and reasonable at the time of divorce, a judge will be able to satisfy the searching inquiry we require by examining the same factors employed for evaluating a separation agreement,” the chief justice added.
The 26-page decision is Ansin v. Craven-Ansin, Lawyers Weekly No. 10-132-10. The full text of the ruling can be found here.
– Thomas E. Egan